[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2757-2761]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ERGONOMICS RULE

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to speak on another issue 
affecting working families that also will be coming up in a very few 
hours. That is the proposal that will be made by, as I understand, our 
Republican leadership or representatives introducing legislation which, 
after a 10-hour agreement, will vitiate the existing rules to protect 
American workers from ergonomic injuries.
  If we asked Americans 10 years ago what ergonomic injuries were, a 
great many Americans would not have been able to pronounce the word 
``ergonomic,'' and they really would not have had much of an 
understanding as to what the problem was.
  Interestingly, there was a very courageous and brave woman who did 
understand that problem and that challenge and was willing to do 
something about it. That was then-President Bush's Labor Secretary, 
Elizabeth Dole. This is what the Secretary of Labor said about 
ergonomic injuries in 1990, 11 years ago:

       One of the Nation's most debilitating across-the-board 
     worker safety and health illnesses. . . .
       We must do our utmost to protect workers from these 
     hazards. . . .
       By reducing repetitive motion injuries, we will increase 
     both the safety and productivity of America's workforce. I 
     have no higher priority than accomplishing just that.

  That was 11 years ago. Over the period of the last 10 years, we have 
had study after study by the National Academy of Sciences, by the 
Institutes of Medicine, by a range of different independent groups. 
Finally at the end of last year, there was the promulgation of a rule 
to provide protection.
  For whom are we providing protection? Basically, ergonomic injuries 
are repetitive motion injuries, including carpal tunnel syndrome, 
tendonitis, and back disorders. Ergonomic injuries occur across the 
board. Among those affected are secretaries who endure carpal tunnel 
syndrome from the use of computers, factory workers who pick up and 
place equipment on assembly lines, nurses who suffer back injuries from 
lifting patients, and high-tech workers who sit at keyboards all day 
long. All across our new economy, these injuries are taking place.
  Let's look at the numbers of people affected. The source is the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics in the year 2000. There are 1.8 million 
ergonomic injuries reported yearly, and 600,000 people lose time from 
their work yearly. Ergonomic injuries impose annual costs of $50 
billion; account for over one-third of all serious job-related 
injuries; and account for over two-thirds of all job-related illnesses.
  Why do I bring this up? We were talking a few moments ago about 
bankruptcy, and that is the measure before the Senate. Tomorrow, on a 
privileged motion, without any other earlier statement, only what we 
have read in the newspapers and in the last several hours have 
confirmed, we will face a motion made by the other side under 
particular procedures. We will permit only 10 hours of debate, and if 
that motion carries, the rule that was in the works for 10 years will 
be wiped out within a 10-hour period. The way the language of the law 
is drafted, there will be little recourse to reissue the rule in its 
current form.
  That is what will be before the Senate tomorrow. We will get off this 
bankruptcy bill with time enough to look after another major issue of 
special importance to the Chamber of Commerce and the National 
Association of Manufacturers. Of course, the Chamber of Commerce has a 
direct interest in bankruptcy, because of the credit card industry and 
the banking industry. The Chamber of Commerce is leading the battle on 
this bankruptcy bill.
  The Chamber is looking for a twofer this year. They are looking for 
two big wins at the expense of working Americans: one, in the area of 
bankruptcy;

[[Page 2758]]

two, in undermining existing protections to ensure the health and 
safety of workers in the workforce.
  That is why I take this time. We will find out tomorrow if there will 
be a motion to debate this issue. We will not be debating the issues of 
bankruptcy. We will be debating this. How many colleagues will know 
this when they come to their offices tomorrow? It will be interesting 
because there has been virtually no notice given to us.
  If the Administration has concerns about the existing ergonomics 
rule, the rule could be adjusted, could be changed, or could be altered 
without use of this motion. The Administration has an available 
administrative process and procedure to make changes in the rule. We 
could have addressed concerns about the rule through hearings and 
delayed implementation of the rule. But opponents of the rule say: No, 
we think we have the votes to eliminate it altogether and put 1.8 
million workers at risk. We think we can add up the votes and destroy 
the rule tomorrow afternoon after 10 hours of debate.
  Under the law, if opponents of the ergonomics rule have the votes, 
they can even shorten the debate. Then at the end of the day we will 
find those 1.8 million workers without any kind of protection. That is 
what is happening.
  I don't know where the speakers are on this issue. Hopefully, we will 
have a chance to debate this more tomorrow.
  Women are disproportionately harmed by ergonomic hazards. Women 
comprise 47 percent of the total workforce and incur 33 percent of the 
total injuries in the workforce. But women constitute 64 percent of all 
those who lose time from work because of repetitive motion injuries, 
and 71 percent of those who lose worker time for carpal tunnel 
injuries. The ergonomics rule is thus of special benefit for women who 
are out there working, trying to provide for their families. They are 
the ones primarily injured. They are the ones who lose time. They are 
the ones who will suffer most if the ergonomics rule is eliminated.
  If there are problems with the rule, we can amend it, we can change 
it; we can alter it.
  We are prepared to do that. Let's get the best in terms of the 
private sector and the workers, the women's groups, and others, and try 
to fashion something. But oh, no. The other side is saying: let's just 
tear up the rule and throw it out. That is what the proposal will be.
  We hear a good deal about this new spirit taking place in Washington, 
DC. This is not in evidence in the Senate, where they send two bolts 
right at working families, first through the the bankruptcy bill and 
second, by taking this extraordinary step to destroy the ergonomics 
rule. I think this is the first time we have used this provision, 
enacted 5 or 6 years ago, in order to put workers all across this 
country--in the new economy and in the older economy as well--at 
serious risk.
  I will come back to who is in favor of this action. Virtually every 
medical group and health care group supports the ergonomics rule. But 
not the Chamber or the National Association of Manufacturers.
  Let's look at what the Chamber claims as to why the ergonomics rule 
ought to be repealed. The Chamber claims the rule is not supported by 
sound science. This is the first myth.
  We have seen in debate time and time again, more often now than 
before, individuals misstate the position of the opposition and then 
differ with it. It is an old debating technique. I have had Members who 
have described my amendments in a way I could not understand and then 
said they differed with them. That is a tried and tested technique that 
should be discounted, but too often it is not. And it is what is at 
work here.
  Let's listen to what has been said about the rule. I have the NAM 
statement, which lists seven reasons we ought to be against the 
ergonomics rule. We have the Chamber of Commerce statement. I will 
state these for the record because it is important they be answered. 
Whether we will have a chance to do that tomorrow or not, we will do 
the best we can.
  First, the Chamber says that the bill is not supported by sound 
science.
  The recent National Academy of Sciences study proves conclusively 
that workplace practices cause ergonomic injuries and that ergonomic 
programs work to prevent and limit these injuries. That study confirms 
the results of thousands of prior studies.
  This National Academy of Sciences study was primarily focused on 
lower back and upper extremity musculoskeletal injuries. It stated 
that:

       The panel concludes that there is a clear relationship 
     between back disorders and physical load; that is, manual 
     material handling, load moment, frequent bending and 
     twisting, heavy physical work, and whole-body vibration. For 
     disorders of the upper extremities, repetition, force, and 
     vibration are particularly important work-related factors.

  It goes on. You can read the conclusions. The Chamber's claim that 
the rule is not supported by sound science is categorically false and 
misleading.
  The National Association of Manufacturers claims the rules set too 
low a threshold and that one job-related complaint will trigger the 
rule.
  Right? Wrong. Wrong. They are wrong. This standard sets a threshold 
that is lower than the ones OSHA has set in other rules, including its 
lockout-tagout standard, asbestos standard, and blood-borne pathogen 
standard. In these rules, employers must take action if an employee is 
merely exposed to a risk. These are rules that OSHA has adopted and 
that are in effect, despite the opposition of the Chamber of Commerce 
and the National Association of Manufacturers.
  Under the ergonomics rule, even if there are serious ergonomic 
hazards in a workplace, an employer is not required to look for or 
correct those hazards until after a worker is injured or has signs or 
symptoms of an injury. One complaint requires an employer to determine 
that an injury is work related and that exposure to risk is at 
significant levels. It does not trigger the entire program.
  Once there is an injury, in other words, the employer makes the 
judgment whether it is work related--the employer makes that judgment. 
Then, after that, the employer has to find that the individual has been 
exposed to the risk at significant levels. It is only then that other 
requirements of the rule are triggered.
  So the National Association of Manufacturers' claim that the rule 
sets too low a threshold is just not an accurate representation as to 
what the rule does.
  Third, the National Association and the Chamber claim the rule covers 
injuries that are not caused by workplace practices. But under the 
rule, as I mentioned, the employer decides that an injury is work 
related. They are thus completely wrong in that statement as well.
  They go on. The Chamber claims the rule imposes an impractical, 
overreaching, and one-size-fits-all approach. The reality is the rule 
allows employers to determine how best to deal with ergonomic problems 
in their workforces. The rule doesn't mandate specific solutions. If an 
employer decides an injury is work related, the employer must then 
determine, based on a simple checklist set forth in the rule, whether 
the employee has suffered sufficiently severe exposure to require 
action. If so, the employer can decide on the solution it wants to 
adopt.
  The Chamber claims the rule will be extremely costly for business. 
After an exhaustive analysis of the issue, the Department of Labor 
estimated the rule will result in a net savings--savings--of $4.5 
billion each year in reduced workers compensation costs and increased 
productivity.
  Numerous business leaders have found the ergonomics programs they 
have implemented have saved a good deal of money. I am going to come 
back to that in just a moment.
  Next, the Chamber claims the rule requires higher payments than 
workers' compensation and overrides State workers' compensation laws.
  The payments to workers are necessary to encourage them to report 
their injuries before they worsen and before other workers are 
needlessly exposed. This is not a new concept. It has been used for 20 
years. It was used in the lead, benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, and 
ethylene chloride standards.

[[Page 2759]]

The idea is to try to get the workers to report their injuries at an 
early time, before they become permanently injured and before the costs 
and the loss of time escalate dramatically. So the Chamber clearly 
misrepresented what the current status of the law is and what the 
precedents have been.
  Again, the NAM alleges OSHA has admitted the rule's grandfather 
clause will not grandfather any employers. OSHA has not ever made this 
statement. In fact, OSHA predicts many employers will be grandfathered 
in. The NAM's statement is basically flagrantly misleading and wrong.
  The NAM claims the DOL ignored the will of Congress by issuing the 
rule. The fact is, in funding the National Academy of Sciences study of 
ergonomics in 1999, the Congress expressly promised it would not be 
used to delay issuance of the rule. This is what Bob Livingston and 
Dave Obey said when they were the Chair and the ranking member of the 
House Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the full letter 
presented in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                 Washington, DC, October 19, 1998.
     Hon. Alexis Herman,
     Secretary of Labor,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Secretary: Congress has chosen not to include 
     language in the Fiscal Year 1999 Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act that would prohibit OSHA from using funds to issue or 
     promulgate a proposed or final rule on ergonomics. As you are 
     well aware, the Fiscal Year 1998 Labor, Health and Human 
     Services and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act did contain such a prohibition though OSHA was free to 
     continue the work required to develop such a rule.
       Congress has also chosen to provide $890,000 for the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services to fund a review by 
     the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the scientific 
     literature regarding work-related musculoskeletal disorders. 
     We understand that OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule on 
     ergonomics late in the summer of 1999. We are writing to make 
     clear that by funding the NAS study, it is in no way our 
     intent to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule 
     on ergonomics.
           Sincerely,
     Bob Livingston,
       Chairman.
     Dave Obey,
       Ranking Member.

  Mr. KENNEDY. The letter says: ``We understand OSHA intends to issue a 
proposed rule on ergonomics late this summer. We are writing to make 
clear that by funding the NAS study, it is in no way our intent to 
block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics.''
  So NAM claims that DOL ignored the bipartisan will of Congress are 
completely, blatantly, flagrantly wrong, as are so many of the other 
claims. Here, when Congress asked for the study, they understood there 
would not be a delay. They wanted the information.
  Furthermore, the NAM states the NAS study did not address the issue 
of causation and repeatedly called for more study. The Academy, Mr. 
President, explicitly stated it had done sufficient work to support 
conclusive findings that workplace practices cause ergonomics injuries.
  The CRA, the procedure which will be in use here, is a unique 
procedure which is violative of the traditions of this body which 
permit and encourage debate and discussion and then action at the 
termination of debate. We have the 10-hour limitation on debate, and 
then an up or down vote that will lead to elimination of the rule, 
instead of altering or changing it.
  The NAM claims that use of CRA ``will not bar the Department of Labor 
from adopting an ergonomics rule in the future.'' They ought to read 
the provisions of the CRA, which I believe will exclude the possibility 
for getting any kind of action in the future.
  I want to take a moment to show what some businesses have said about 
this particular proposal over a period of time. Business leaders agree 
that ergonomics programs work. Peter Meyer of Sequin International 
Quality Center said:

       We have reduced our compensation claims for carpal tunnel 
     syndrome through an effective ergonomics program and our 
     productivity has increased dramatically and our absenteeism 
     has decreased drastically.

  This is from Business Week, which should not be considered to be a 
part of the working families establishment. In December of the year 
2000, Business Week said that for most companies, ``the likely outcome 
will be dramatically fewer employees with ergonomics problems and long-
term cost savings to boot.''
  We have a number of those different statements by businesses that 
have gone ahead and created ergonomics programs on their own.
  American scientists also call the ergonomic rule ``necessary and 
based on sound science.''
  These are the various groups--Orthopedic Surgeons, Association of 
Occupational Health Nurses, Occupational Therapy Association, Society 
of Safety Engineers, Chiropractic Association, Public Health 
Association--that believe the rule which has been promulgated makes 
sense in protecting American workers. But with one single vote, we are 
going to have a situation where that rule is cast aside--no 
alterations, no changes, and no modifications. It is just take it or 
leave it because we have the votes, and there will be no attempt to try 
to work this out, no attempt in terms of the word ``civility'' to try 
to listen to the other side in making some alterations and changes. No. 
It is just: We have the votes to knock out this provision and undermine 
protection for Americans--primarily women--in the workforce, and we are 
going to do that tomorrow in a 10-hour period. I think the arrogance of 
that position with regard to protecting workers is absolutely 
unacceptable.
  This particular proposal has been 10 years in the making, and in 10 
hours we will effectively have it undone. I would have hoped for some 
opportunity to discuss this. Instead, tomorrow we will have only the 10 
hours to go through these measures.
  We hear a great deal also about the volume of the rule itself. It has 
been misstated that it is 600 pages. It is closer to eight or nine 
pages. Those are the rules.
  I believe these rules represent the most important rulemaking to 
protect American workers that we have had in recent times. It is the 
most important rule that we will have for the next several years. It 
will make major differences in terms of the health and safety and the 
productivity of the American workforce. Without this kind of 
protection, we are putting at significant risk tens of thousands or 
hundreds of thousands of American workers. We are doing that in 1 day 
of votes in the Senate. That is wrong. That is absolutely wrong.
  We will be denied the opportunity to try to make adjustments or 
changes if we want to do it. There is a procedure to be able to do it. 
But absolutely no. Our opponents say: We have the votes, and we are 
going to turn our backs on American workers, particularly on women, who 
are looking for some protection.
  I am hopeful this measure can be defeated. But it is a bad day and a 
sad day for American workers when it is even brought up for debate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks 
follow immediately those remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts who 
spoke immediately before Senator Grassley so that Senator Sessions' 
comments will flow on Senator Grassley's remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alabama. First, I 
congratulate both the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and the Senator 
from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, for their ultimate effort on the bankruptcy 
bill. They have both done an excellent job, as well as the people on 
the other side of the aisle who have contributed to a bipartisan bill, 
a bill the Senator from Iowa mentioned we passed before.
  I have been the subcommittee chairman for international trade and 
finance, and, as such, I got to oversee some of the International 
Monetary

[[Page 2760]]

Fund bailouts of some of the other countries that got into an economic 
crisis. When that happened, we forced them to do bankruptcy. We forced 
them to do what we have been talking about. They did it, and their 
economies came back.
  It is a little embarrassing to revisit those countries and have them 
say: How come you folks have not taken your own advice?
  I appreciate all the effort that my colleagues have put into this. It 
is extremely crucial for the United States and for the consumers and 
for the individuals of this country.
  The reason I am here, though, is not to deal with bankruptcy. The 
speech preceding mine was not a speech on bankruptcy. It was a speech 
on ergonomics. The Senator I succeeded, Senator Simpson, used to say: 
Charges unanswered are charges believed.
  I must discuss the ergonomic comments that have been made. This is a 
preview of tomorrow. Tomorrow, we will have a full-blown debate, I 
hope, on ergonomics. It is an extremely crucial issue for every single 
person in this country. It is very important we do it and we do it 
right. I put the emphasis on doing it ``right.''
  The reason we are going to have a debate tomorrow is it has been done 
wrong. We will invoke the Congressional Review Act tomorrow, the first 
significant use of it since it was passed. I congratulate the two 
people who were primarily responsible for bringing the Congressional 
Review Act to the Senate, the Senator from Oklahoma, Don Nickles, and 
the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid--one a Democrat, one a Republican.
  It was a bipartisan bill. Why was it a bipartisan bill? Congress has 
the responsibility for passing laws in this Congress. We have gotten in 
the habit of delegating our responsibility. It is much easier than 
hashing out details, to put in a little part in the bill that says we 
want an agency to write the rules.
  The reason we passed a Congressional Review Act is we gave that 
responsibility away and we didn't like what the agencies did. I am sure 
each Member who has dealt with an agency and their rules have had 
occasion to say somebody ought to jerk them back to reality. That is 
exactly what those two Senators did--one a Republican, one a Democrat. 
They deserve congratulations from this body.
  Now we need to have the courage to use what they and others did. 
Although I was not here when it was passed, I suspect some of the 
people criticizing the Congressional Review Act now were here when it 
was passed. I suspect some of them voted for it.
  Now we want to use it on a rule they have some interest in, and they 
don't want to touch it using that act. I think it is very important we 
use the Congressional Review Act, we congratulate the people who passed 
it, and we need to put it to use on this ill-conceived rule.
  The ergonomics rule has to be the worst rule ever passed by any 
government agency. It was passed quicker than any other rule by OSHA. 
We will hear comments that Elizabeth Dole noticed it and mentioned it 
10 years ago. I have found references to businesses who knew about it, 
noticed it, and did something about it, considerably before Elizabeth 
Dole noticed it 10 years ago. I have been proud of some of the 
businesses that have made extensive efforts to handle ergonomics in the 
workplace in spite of not having a rule in place. But regardless of how 
long ago the issue was first mentioned, OSHA's rule was only proposed 
less than a year before the final rule came out.
  It is not the intent of business to hurt employees. It is better 
business to protect employees. One of the difficulties with ergonomics, 
an injury does not just happen at work. It happens all sorts of places. 
It is hard to tell where it happened, when it happened, and how it 
happened.
  Putting that aside, we need to have an ergonomics rule. We need to be 
dealing with it in every possible way. But we have to have a rule that 
does something, not just costs something. Part of that cost is not 
going to just be dollars. The estimated $4 billion to perhaps $100 
billion is a pretty wide range of numbers. The biggest cost is going to 
be in American jobs. This will get down to the workers, the people we 
are not allowing to talk about how to solve the problem, the workers 
closest to the job, the ones who are doing the lifting or typing or 
hammering or whatever repetitive motion is involved. No, we have our 
government set up so the bureaucrats try to find solutions and special 
committees of speakers can be set up to talk about it and mandate one 
solution for all. But the guy doing the work, who sees it each and 
every day, who says there is a better way to do this, cannot decide how 
his job can be done better. And in most circumstances it is not even 
legal to ask him about it. There is a law that says employers better 
not talk directly to employees about safety. But workers are suffering. 
We need to do something about it.
  Fortunately, many businesses already are. According to OSHA, even 
before the rule, in the last 5 years, there was a 22-percent decrease 
in ergonomics injuries. The Bureau of Labor Statistics gives business 
far more credit for having done something than does OSHA. Perhaps OSHA 
has an ulterior motive?
  At any rate, businesses, when they know what to do, generally do it. 
I have to say ``generally.'' I always hear the arguments on the floor, 
not just dealing with OSHA but dealing with a lot of topics, one side 
talks about the bad businessmen and the other side talks about the 
fraudulent employees. Neither side is right. Yes, there are bad 
businessmen. Yes, there are fraudulent employees. But not very many, 
thank goodness.
  I would say there are 5 percent of the businesses in this country 
with businessmen who are ethically challenged. There are about that 
many employees who are ethically challenged. Out of that 5 percent, 
many of them just don't care. That's about 3 percent, I think, who 
generally don't care. No matter what kind of law is passed, they don't 
care, so it doesn't matter what you do. That is both sides.
  Of all those who are ethically challenged, I think only one tenth of 
one percent is truly bad, bad to the bone. That might even be high; 
might be a little low. But even though the rules and laws in this 
country affect every single person, they are written as if they are 
only for the one-tenth of 1 percent who were bad to the bone. That is 
pretty much what this rule is designed to do.
  If you want people treated as though they are bad to the bone, both 
employers and employees, maybe you don't think this rule is so bad. But 
if you don't, I urge you to vote with me to reverse the ergonomics 
rule.
  We heard criticisms of the rule by people who had written letters. 
Some of those were: The rule is bad; the rule has massive flaws in it. 
Some things were taken out of context. I hope we get into those 
tomorrow. We held hearings in the Labor Subcommittee; the Employment, 
Safety and Training Subcommittee of the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions. We held hearings. This is a book of the hearings.
  We held two specific hearings on the way it will affect health care 
in this country. We talked about how OSHA needs to resolve the conflict 
between the ergonomics rule and the medical rules so you don't have to 
violate one to achieve the other. We talked about the way the payments 
for Medicare are locked in at a rate that doesn't recognize the costs 
OSHA recognizes, the costs that facilities providing Medicare will have 
to pay. The rule doesn't mention that. We also talked about workers' 
comp in our hearings. We had people who weighed in from New York, 
Pennsylvania, and New Mexico. We talked about the way the rule 
infringes on workers comp.
  In the OSH Act, there is a specific provision prohibiting infringing 
on workers comp. Workers comp is a system that has been developed in 
the States, by the States, over decades. There isn't a single thing in 
place in the OSHA administration to take care of the kinds of 
controversies, the kinds of processes that will have to be dealt

[[Page 2761]]

with to handle workers comp. They get into workers comp.
  Did they listen to what we had to say at the hearings? Not at all. 
They didn't listen to what was said by the professionals in the field, 
the State people in the field, the people on the panels, or the 
Senators asking the questions. You won't find any of it has wound up in 
the rule they put out. What kind of Government do we have that doesn't 
listen?
  You heard some groups that are in favor of the ergonomics bill, 
ergonomics rule. I am not surprised they are in favor of ergonomics 
protection, so am I. What we should not be in favor of is this 
particular ergonomics rule. This rule will bind up what business is 
able to do.
  As I said, tomorrow we will get into more of the differences, the 
flaws and things about which they did not listen. But there is a big 
problem with this one that deserves use of the congressional review 
act. Here is what it is. The process was flawed. How they passed it was 
atrocious.
  I am ashamed that any agency of our Government did business the way 
they did business. What did they do? Just a few things I will mention 
today. Listen for full details tomorrow.
  They paid people to testify on their behalf. They reviewed and 
corrected their testimony before it was given. They brought them in for 
practices. Then, worst of all, they paid them to rip apart the 
testimony of the individuals who came on their own to testify. Yes.
  We cannot allow our Government to pay people to destroy the testimony 
of other citizens in this country who have the right to speak on any 
rule as well.
  After that happened, and after I mentioned it on the floor, I got to 
meet with the Assistant Secretary of OSHA and asked him about it. I 
asked him what the process was going to be like. I was a little curious 
as to whether they were going to try to push through this rule.
  I mentioned they talk about how Liddy Dole mentioned it 10 years ago. 
But this rule did not get published until a little over a year ago. The 
first time it was published that anybody could actually look at a 
document and say this is what it says was less than a year before the 
time it was finalized--less than a year. The average rulemaking time on 
things much less difficult than ergonomics is 4 years. It takes 4 years 
to get a rule in place.
  I contend, on a lot of these things, we should get together. We could 
agree on most of it and get things in place in a shorter time than OSHA 
can react. But the two sides don't talk, and separately they keep 
working on that one-tenth of 1 percent of the people who are bad to the 
bone.
  I had this meeting with the Assistant Secretary of OSHA. I mentioned 
some of the things with which we had some concerns based on the 
hearings. He admitted he was an advocate for the rule the way it was.
  It seems to me the agency ought to be listening to the comments. I do 
not see how you can be an advocate and still heed what people have said 
about what you wrote. I was concerned about that. I brought it up with 
him. I said: Can you give me any indication that you will make any 
changes in light of the testimony we have presented? He could not 
comment on that.
  But I can tell you, now that I have seen the final rule that is 
published, he not only didn't listen to me, he didn't listen to the 
comments that were there. I have to tell you, the final rule that was 
published was far more difficult than the one on which we had to 
comment.
  We cannot have that kind of activity in this country. What if 
agencies wrote a rule and published it, one with which they knew 
everybody would agree, then they took testimony, they took comments, 
they tabulated it--which was not done in the instance I am talking 
about, or at least I don't see how it could have been done--and then 
they published a final rule that was totally different from the one on 
which they took testimony?
  That is why we need a CRA, to jerk people back to reality who think 
they know the way to do it and do not take into consideration the 
comments of the people of this country.
  We have a document that is flawed. We have a document that was done 
the wrong way. We need to redo it.
  You may also hear that the CRA prohibits reissuing the rule if it is 
``substantially the same.'' That is absolutely correct. Probably 
another brilliant idea that was put in the bill by the bi-partisan co-
sponsors. ``Substantially the same'' doesn't mean it cannot be done at 
all. It means that agency that jerked people around before cannot take 
the same thing, change a word, and put it back out as a rule again, 
which would put us in the continuous motion of overriding an agency's 
ill will. We would do it if we had to. But that is what the 
Congressional Review Act is designed to avoid. It should not be that 
difficult. With civility and bipartisanship, we ought to be able to 
arrive at a new approach, and not just on this rule.
  Did you know, on the rules that OSHA has passed, we rarely revise a 
single one? Do you think technology has changed in 28 years? Do you 
think there is any need to change anything that was written 28 years 
ago? You had better believe there is, and we need to find a system to 
do it. I pledge to work toward a system that will allow safety for the 
workplace to get into place easier, quicker, and more effective than it 
is right now. I am sure business and labor will join in that effort to 
make sure we get more safety in the workplace.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________